How Scotland's proposal to introduce goal line technology was defeated by Blatter
in [World Football]
|
Prev: The WC draw is a joke. Neither of JPN or PAR deserve to be in QF, but GER-ENG or ESP-POR must eliminate each other!
Next: World Cup games single thread - [R] after round of 16
From: Abubakr on 30 Jun 2010 08:52 On Jun 30, 10:49 pm, Clément <lcmello.lis...(a)terra.com.br> wrote: > "Abubakr" escreveu: > > > > >On Jun 30, 6:49 pm, anders t wrote: > >> Quoting Huw Morris in rec.sport.soccer: > > >>>tuan wrote: > > >>>> Easily avoidable - arrange to have challenges considered at the next > >>>> "natural" pause (free kick, corner kick, throw in or goal). Then if the > >>>> Lampart kick was not a goal, a successful counterattack would still > >>>> give > >>>> Germany a point. If the Lampart kick was a goal, the German > >>>> counterattack even if successful will be disallowed, as it should be.. > > >> This is what icehockey does already. After the first whistle they check > >> if > >> was a goal, and then time is rewound to that point, and anything that > >> happened afterwards... has not happened. > > "and anything that happened afterwards... has not happened" what like > > a bone-crunching tackle from Terry to stop a certain goal from Klose > > on the counter? > > I'm too busy to check the ice hockey rules right not, but from the top of my > mind the "and anything that happened afterwards... has not happened" > situation does not apply to (disciplinary) penalties. > > In the hypothetical situation you describe, Germany would not be warranted a > free kick (as they would have to resume the match from center field after > the goal), but Terry should get a card from the bone-crunching tackle - > which is only showed after the first whistle anyway, when the match is > already stopped. > > Compare that with a cardable foul commited when the ball is out of play. The > referre cannot call the foul per se, but he still must punish the offending > with a card. It's basically the same thing, except that in the rewind > situation some action is considered to be "out of play" retroactively. But this is would still be a problem since the untimeliness of the decision (to bring the play back) would have been a major contributing factor to Terry's tackle (and probable sending off) and in Klose's needing his bones to be set again.
From: Sven Mischkies on 30 Jun 2010 09:08 On Jun 30, 1:52 pm, Abubakr <deltara...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 30, 10:49 pm, Clément <lcmello.lis...(a)terra.com.br> wrote: > > > > > "Abubakr" escreveu: > > > >On Jun 30, 6:49 pm, anders t wrote: > > >> Quoting Huw Morris in rec.sport.soccer: > > > >>>tuan wrote: > > > >>>> Easily avoidable - arrange to have challenges considered at the next > > >>>> "natural" pause (free kick, corner kick, throw in or goal). Then if the > > >>>> Lampart kick was not a goal, a successful counterattack would still > > >>>> give > > >>>> Germany a point. If the Lampart kick was a goal, the German > > >>>> counterattack even if successful will be disallowed, as it should be. > > > >> This is what icehockey does already. After the first whistle they check > > >> if > > >> was a goal, and then time is rewound to that point, and anything that > > >> happened afterwards... has not happened. > > > "and anything that happened afterwards... has not happened" what like > > > a bone-crunching tackle from Terry to stop a certain goal from Klose > > > on the counter? > > > I'm too busy to check the ice hockey rules right not, but from the top of my > > mind the "and anything that happened afterwards... has not happened" > > situation does not apply to (disciplinary) penalties. > > > In the hypothetical situation you describe, Germany would not be warranted a > > free kick (as they would have to resume the match from center field after > > the goal), but Terry should get a card from the bone-crunching tackle - > > which is only showed after the first whistle anyway, when the match is > > already stopped. > > > Compare that with a cardable foul commited when the ball is out of play.. The > > referre cannot call the foul per se, but he still must punish the offending > > with a card. It's basically the same thing, except that in the rewind > > situation some action is considered to be "out of play" retroactively. > > But this is would still be a problem since the untimeliness of the > decision (to bring the play back) would have been a major contributing > factor to Terry's tackle (and probable sending off) and in Klose's > needing his bones to be set again. I am with Luiz Mello here. ;) The game going on does not justify to injure opponents. You are still responsible for you actions and therefore liable to get a card for conduct that warrants one. Btw: Coaches/Managers already have the power to halt the game for a few seconds, and they make use of it a lot, especially towards the end of games - substitutions. Why not say that instead of 3 substitutions the coach has 3 chances to pause the game - either for a substitution or for a challenge. This way there would be a maximum of 3 challenges per game and they would come at a price - 1 challenge means you have only 2 subs left, etc. Maybe one could add that a successfull challenge does not count against the 3. Ciao, SM
From: Abubakr on 30 Jun 2010 09:13 On Jun 30, 11:08 pm, Sven Mischkies <hs...(a)der-ball-ist-rund.net> wrote: > On Jun 30, 1:52 pm, Abubakr <deltara...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 30, 10:49 pm, Clément <lcmello.lis...(a)terra.com.br> wrote: > > > > "Abubakr" escreveu: > > > > >On Jun 30, 6:49 pm, anders t wrote: > > > >> Quoting Huw Morris in rec.sport.soccer: > > > > >>>tuan wrote: > > > > >>>> Easily avoidable - arrange to have challenges considered at the next > > > >>>> "natural" pause (free kick, corner kick, throw in or goal). Then if the > > > >>>> Lampart kick was not a goal, a successful counterattack would still > > > >>>> give > > > >>>> Germany a point. If the Lampart kick was a goal, the German > > > >>>> counterattack even if successful will be disallowed, as it should be. > > > > >> This is what icehockey does already. After the first whistle they check > > > >> if > > > >> was a goal, and then time is rewound to that point, and anything that > > > >> happened afterwards... has not happened. > > > > "and anything that happened afterwards... has not happened" what like > > > > a bone-crunching tackle from Terry to stop a certain goal from Klose > > > > on the counter? > > > > I'm too busy to check the ice hockey rules right not, but from the top of my > > > mind the "and anything that happened afterwards... has not happened" > > > situation does not apply to (disciplinary) penalties. > > > > In the hypothetical situation you describe, Germany would not be warranted a > > > free kick (as they would have to resume the match from center field after > > > the goal), but Terry should get a card from the bone-crunching tackle - > > > which is only showed after the first whistle anyway, when the match is > > > already stopped. > > > > Compare that with a cardable foul commited when the ball is out of play. The > > > referre cannot call the foul per se, but he still must punish the offending > > > with a card. It's basically the same thing, except that in the rewind > > > situation some action is considered to be "out of play" retroactively.. > > > But this is would still be a problem since the untimeliness of the > > decision (to bring the play back) would have been a major contributing > > factor to Terry's tackle (and probable sending off) and in Klose's > > needing his bones to be set again. > > I am with Luiz Mello here. ;) > > The game going on does not justify to injure opponents. You are still > responsible for you actions and therefore liable to get a card for > conduct that warrants one. > Btw: Coaches/Managers already have the power to halt the game for a > few seconds, and they make use of it a lot, especially towards the end > of games - substitutions. Subs are allowed but only on one's own throw-in. >Why not say that instead of 3 substitutions > the coach has 3 chances to pause the game - either for a substitution > or for a challenge. This way there would be a maximum of 3 challenges > per game and they would come at a price - 1 challenge means you have > only 2 subs left, etc. Maybe one could add that a successfull > challenge does not count against the 3. But why not try to look for a solution that gives the decision in a timely manner so that such situations need never arise?
From: Clément on 30 Jun 2010 09:29 "Abubakr" escreveu: >On Jun 30, 10:49 pm, Cl�ment wrote: >> I'm too busy to check the ice hockey rules right not, but from the top of >> my >> mind the "and anything that happened afterwards... has not happened" >> situation does not apply to (disciplinary) penalties. >> >> In the hypothetical situation you describe, Germany would not be >> warranted a >> free kick (as they would have to resume the match from center field after >> the goal), but Terry should get a card from the bone-crunching tackle - >> which is only showed after the first whistle anyway, when the match is >> already stopped. >> >> Compare that with a cardable foul commited when the ball is out of play. >> The >> referre cannot call the foul per se, but he still must punish the >> offending >> with a card. It's basically the same thing, except that in the rewind >> situation some action is considered to be "out of play" retroactively. >But this is would still be a problem since the untimeliness of the >decision (to bring the play back) would have been a major contributing >factor to Terry's tackle (and probable sending off) and in Klose's >needing his bones to be set again. I agree there's a solid consistency argument to be made against such a rule. But then again we might wonder how important is this concern, if we realize players are not allowed to hurt other players (or even risk doing so) regardless of the ball being in play or not. This reasoning could easily be extended to a hypothetical situation in which some plays could be "erased" for every other purpose. In other words, I'm not too worried about the perceived unfairness of carding our "Terry" here. The "Klose" situation is a problem, and perhaps could be avoided by implementing a better review system. On the other hand, one might assume that with no review/rewinding system, the injury would have happened anyway. For full disclosure, I'm not sure such a system would work well in football. For one, the first whistle could take too much time to happen, unless the referee could somehow stop the match at his discretion (which could create other kinds of trouble). Theoretically, the first whistle could take too long in hockey as well, but I believe it's more of an issue in football. Abra�o, Luiz Mello
From: HASM on 30 Jun 2010 09:52
Abubakr <deltarasha(a)gmail.com> writes: > On Jun 30, 11:08Â pm, Sven Mischkies <hs...(a)der-ball-ist-rund.net> > Subs are allowed but only on one's own throw-in. Substitutions are allowed at every stoppage of play. -- HASM |